diplomsko delo
Abstract
Leyla Ecem Demirkan je s tožbo pred nemškim sodiščem zahtevala ugotovitev, da za prestop nemške meje ne potrebuje vize. Odločitev naj bi temeljila na razlagi Pridružitvenega sporazuma ter klavzule »standstill« vsebovane v Dodatnem protokolu Pridružitvenega sporazuma med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Republiko Turčijo, ki pogodbenicama prepoveduje uvedbo novih omejitev na področju svobodnega opravljanja storitev ter svobodne ustanovitve. Uredba (ES) št. 539/2001 in na njej temelječ nemški predpis sta obveznost vize uvedla po začetku veljavnosti Dodatnega protokola.
Predložitveno sodišče je Sodišču EU zastavilo vprašanje, ali klavzula »standstill«, vsebovana v Pridružitvenem sporazumu s Turčijo ščiti tudi prejemnike storitev. Sodišče je z analizo sodne prakse prišlo do zaključka, da se cilji Pridružitvenega sporazuma ter Pogodb o Evropski uniji in delovanju Evropske unije preveč razlikujejo, da bi bilo mogoče sodno prakso, ustvarjeno v povezavi s Pogodbo o delovanju Evropske unije prenesti na Pridružitveni sporazum. Ker tudi ne obstaja sodna praksa, ki bi v kontekstu klavzule »standstill« že priznala pravice prejemnikom storitev, je odločilo, da takšnih pravic klavzula ne zagotavlja in da je treba klavzulo razumeti tako, da v okviru svobodnega opravljanja storitev ščiti samo ponudnike storitev.
Keywords
mednarodno pravo;Evropska unija;zadeva Demirkan;pridružitveni sporazum;dodatni protokol;klavzula "standstill";turški državljani;sodna praksa;svoboda opravljanja storitev;pasivna svoboda opravljanja storitev;diplomska dela;
Data
Language: |
Slovenian |
Year of publishing: |
2014 |
Typology: |
2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis |
Organization: |
UM PF - Faculty of Law |
Publisher: |
[J. Horvat] |
UDC: |
351.756(043.2) |
COBISS: |
4790571
|
Views: |
1302 |
Downloads: |
152 |
Average score: |
0 (0 votes) |
Metadata: |
|
Other data
Secondary language: |
English |
Secondary title: |
TURKISH CITIZENS RIGHTS IN THE EU AFTER THE CJEU JUDGEMENT IN DEMIRKON |
Secondary abstract: |
Leyla Ecem Demirkan filed a suit before a German court, demanding a conclusion, that she does not need a visa to cross German border. This finding should be based on the interpretation of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and the “standstill” clause, contained in the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, which prohibits the parties to introduce new restrictions to the free movement of service and freedom of establishment. The Regulation 539/2001 and the German regulation, based on it, introduced the visa requirement after the Additional Protocol entered into force.
The referring court asked the EU Court, if the “standstill” clause, contained in the EEC-Turkey Agreement, also protects the receivers of services. The Court analyzed case-law and came to a conclusion, that the objectives of the EEC-Turkey Agreement on one hand and the EU Treaties on the other, are so different, that it would be impossible to transfer the case-law, made by interpreting the EU Treaties, to the EEC-Turkey Agreement. Because there is also no case-law, that would have already give any rights to the service recipients in the context of “standstill” clause, it said, that no such rights are assured by the “standstill” clause, and that it should be understood in a way, that only protects the service providers. |
Secondary keywords: |
Demirkan case;European Union;EEC-Turkey Agreement;Additional Protocol;“standstill” clause;Turkish citizens;case-law;freedom of service;passive freedom of service; |
URN: |
URN:SI:UM: |
Type (COBISS): |
Bachelor thesis/paper |
Thesis comment: |
Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak. |
Pages: |
27 f. |
ID: |
8730126 |